Hello hungrybear, Thanks for your quick reply. Are you saying that I should dispute the fine and the back tax or just put the whole thing down to experience as fighting the DVLA is a lost cause. I have to say the latter does not appeal. johndaye

Hello, Thanks to everyone who has replied. I feel I will have to pay the fine, (I could lie but that makes me as low as them) but I see no reason why I should pay the back tax for vehicle that has not left my back garden for the last seven years. The principle I feel I have to fight is that the DVLA are presuming my guilt and I have to prove my innocense. I thought in this country under the British constitution you were innocent 'til proven guilty. However, would dated photographic evidence of the vehicle covered in green mould, full of rust and with at least one flat tyre be good enough to prove that the vehicle has never been on the road!! Failing that would a local DVLA officer visit. Thank you johndaye

Hello to all. Straight away I apologies for the length of this post. I suspect like many of you reading this, I found this forum after receiving an unwelcome letter from the DVLA. Mine is due to me not renewing a SORN on a vehicle I have had in the back garden for the last 7 years (restoration project). I accept I am guilty as charged. The issue I have is the subtle way the DVLA has moved the goalposts since I first declared this vehicle SORN in 2004. In 2004 I received the standard letter (V956) from the DVLA, thanking me for sending them the SORN form. The next paragraph was as follows - “The vehicle record now shows that this notice began to apply on 01/09/03. This lasts for 12 months. We will then send you a reminder as long as you are still the registered keeper of the vehicle and there have been no other changes. Do not use your vehicle or keep it on a public road while the SORN is in force. If you do, you could be find up to £5000.” The latest letter I received in 2008 for the SORN of the same vehicle has the same form number (V956) but is subtly and very cleverly (to the benefit of the DVLA) different. Again they thank me for sending the SORN form, and then this paragraph followed - “The vehicle record now shows that SORN applies from 01/09/08. The SORN will expire on the 31/08/09. You should receive a reminder about 2 weeks before the SORN expires. However it remains your responsibility to ensure that you renew the SORN or licence the vehicle. If you sell, permanently export, or scrap the vehicle you must tell us. The notes on the vehicle registration (V5C) explain what to do.” Over the past 5 years I have sent SORN forms to the DVLA for this and other vehicles and reading the first few letters and understanding the contents have tended to read the first line of subsequent ones and filed. It now seems that I, and I suspect many others have done this at their peril, and as I am finding at a cost. The issue I have is over the change of basically one word – 2004 - We will then send you a reminder as long as you are still the registered keeper of the vehicle and there have been no other changes. 2008 - You should receive a reminder about 2 weeks before the SORN expires. All of a sudden something that I used to get every year without fail has now got a large dose of unreliability, and the potential to hugely increase the income of the DVLA. I have two questions. Firstly is it legal to change a standard format letter (V956) in such a major way. The old and new letters at glance are identical, including the name of Russell Trowbridge-Matthews at the bottom. Secondly is it worth challenging Mr Trowbridge-Matthews in any way or am I better off coughing the £40 and the arrears of £31.67 and remembering to do it next year. Thanks for reading and I hope it makes sense. johndaye